Life on the Road – Trucking News Blog

This morning when I got up, the first thing I saw on the television was that CSX ad. You know the one where the traffic jam stretches for miles. (At least it wasn’t the one where the railroad crane drags the container off the truck through the trees). But what struck me this morning through my foggy, sleep-addled brains was the fact that every truck shown, the trucks that are supposedly causing the traffic jam, were container trucks! And, where do container trucks go?

I’m probably not your average viewer, my sympathies lie with the truckers stuck in that jam. I’ve spent my time in rail yards and they’re not usually anyone’s favorite destination, although they’ve gotten considerably better in the last ten years. Given the number of container carriers in this jam, they’re either all on their way into a rail yard or a port and they’re probably being paid by the mile.

If Freight’s Down, What’s Up With The Ads?

This economic slowdown isn’t new in the freight industry; anybody who’s been paying attention knows freight has been running ‘funny’ for several years now. A lot of drivers blamed the slowdown on the amount of freight being diverted from truck to rail, part of that is valid. Rail has been ‘at capacity’ on several east-west corridors for 2-3 years.

Any long-hauler who’s observant has seen the number of trains sitting on sidings waiting for a track. The rails don’t have the amount of track space to handle the percentage of freight they’re actively vying for. And now, drivers are reporting that those trains are running half-empty and there are large numbers of engines sitting idle in the southwest. Yet, they’re still paying to run the ads. And the ads have gotten even more creative.

Getting 436 Miles Per Gallon

The latest CSX ad brags that rail freight gets 436 miles per gallon per ton of freight. Sounds really impressive until you really think about it. The 436 ton-miles per gallon is deceptive because the average mind automatically registers miles-per-gallon and never stops to think about what they themselves get in ton-mileage. If you, loaded to the gills with 48,000 lbs, get 6 miles to the gallon, you’re getting 144 ton-miles to the gallon on that 24 ton load. And six mpg isn’t an unachievable amount-I had one truck that I got close to 8mpg consistently once the break-in was well underway. Of course, emissions controls and ultra low sulphur diesel have reduced that kind of mileage. And trains don’t have to use the same low sulphur we do. Still, six mpg is a good, achievable amount for a properly spec’d tractor trailer. That rail freight is three-times as cost effective as you are, fuel wise that is, if they’re fully loaded and all conditions are perfect.

The fact that trains burn dirty diesel opposed to what trucks burn is never mentioned in the argument over truck vs rail freight. Once the greenies figure that out, the 435 ton-miles per gallon wont be nearly as attractive. If there are anti-idle regs on the books that cover trains, I have yet to find them, I haven’t had the time or inclination to go over California clean-air regs with a fine-tooth comb (if there are any, that’s where they’ll be). But none of that answers the question; why all the ads?

Attractive Transportation Funding

What the railroads are working on with this seemingly misplaced advertising campaign is trying to garner public approval to promote rail freight over truck freight. That’s why you’ll never hear anyone point out that a truck hauled every one of those containers at both ends of the trip, sometimes to another rail yard. Rail freight DOES reduce the amount of truck-miles traveling the highways, although not as much as you’d think.  Rail freight usually means extra transit miles as freight has to go to the rail yard, and then be backtracked to the final destination. And it will do nothing to reduce the congestion in the already congested big city areas or near rail hubs and ports. Those trucks will still be there, perhaps even more as rail freight increases, because they are now concentrated in specific areas. And, since every local Wal-Mart will never have its own rail siding, there’s no chance a train can carry that freight to its final drop. We know that they know that. Who DOESN’T know that is the general public. . . they just don’t think things through that thoroughly and don’t have the knowledge to do so.

Purpose Behind The Propaganda

What the railways are attempting to do with these ads is to gain public approval for tax payer funded infrastructure projects, rail projects. To efficiently carry the amount of freight the railroads envision themselves being able to carry will take thousands of new miles of track. It requires expanding rail right-of-ways, doing the expensive grading necessary and building and upgrading underpasses and bridges. They don’t have that kind of money, but you do! The cost is comparable to building an equal amount of new interstates, I’d guess. And, if they’re ever going to convince lawmakers to divert highway funds to rail improvements, they’ve got to develop a core group of citizen cheerleaders who demand this “cheaper’ form of freight transportation is developed even if the cost is non-repair and non-expansion of highways.

This ploy has already worked in some areas: Florida recently diverted monies earmarked for improving commuter routes to raising overpasses and building an intermodal yard on the basis it would cut daily commuter time in a specific area near Jacksonville. Fact is, it will significantly transfer that congestion to another area and another group of citizens will quickly become disgusted with their daily commute. Since many large motor carriers have jumped into the rail freight business with both feet, these intermodal hubs will improve their market positions too. The losers will be the individual and independent truckers and any motorist who expects a well maintained and smooth surfaced highway to travel on each day. Imagine his surprise when he finds out the congestion he is spending money to alleviate just gets worse in other areas.

I don’t know what the answer is to this dilemma. I’d like to see progress, I’d like freight to move efficiently. But, what I see coming is just another big tax grab to benefit private industry and our economy cant afford it. I don’t want my hard earned tax dollars funding what equates to a private ‘highway’ for a direct competitor. So, when you encounter these arguments, use these facts to argue back. And keep trying to improve that 144 ton-miles to the gallon.